First Focal Pane Scopes for Hunting

**ruaanfs** · 27-03-2018, 08:19

Good day,

Is there anyone using FFP scopes for hunting?

I have the opportunity to exchange my current scope for a FFP scope but I would like to know what is your experience with it in hunting situations and if you would recommend it for hunting?

I know the pro's and cons of FFP scopes but most people would say you cant see the reticle at low magnification and on high magnification the reticle covers the target etc etc. But most of these comments is usually from people that does not even own or even used a FFP scope before hence the question with regards to real world experience.

Scope in question is a Hawke Sidewinder 4-16x50 FFP. I am currently using a Hawke Sidewinder 6.5-20x42 SFP.

**A-R** · 27-03-2018, 12:05

It all depends on what you are hunting and how you are doing it. Not all FFP scopes are equal, as the recticle design and magnification ranges differ widely.

If most of your hunting entails precision shots at long range from a stable position, then the typical FFP scope should work well. For typical walk-and-stalk hunting and shots out to around 300m, a normal duplex type recticle on a SFP scope still has the edge.

I often see that shooters and hunters choose LR rifles and LR scopes with too much weight and magnification and over-complicated recticles for normal range hunting applications. The "cool factor" seems to have crept into the decision process and overridden all logic.

So, to answer your question: If your hunting conditions and skills are suitable to that kind of scope, it will obviously work. You have to decide for yourself exactly what your specific needs are.

**ruaanfs** · 27-03-2018, 12:36

To give you an idea I do a mix of bushveld (walk and stalk) and Karoo (Voorsit) hunting. So its a mix of your average close range to average long range shooting. And I like to take some long shots at the range just for fun.

But thanks for your input. Will have a look at the scope later today and decide whether the reticle will give me issues in the bushveld. Guess that will be the deciding factor

**Bonedoc** · 27-03-2018, 12:47

I have a Sightron S3 6-24 and a Burris XTR 5-25. Used mostly for "veldskiet" and "voorsit".

Except for the size and weight of the Burris, it will work for most hunting scenarios. Reticle has thick posts, which work almost like a plex reticle on low magnification(bushveld walk and stalk)while meddle of reticle is thin enough on mid/high magnification for voorsit/veldskiet/range use.

S3 is great at higher magnification, but reticle is very thin at 8x and lower, not useful for bushveld/low light/"snap shot" conditions. Work very well for voorsit/veldskiet/range use.

So, the design of the reticle will be the most important aspect. Size, weight secondary concerns.

Turn it to lowest magnification. See if you can pick up reticle quickly and "aim" at object 100m away to see if reticle will allow you to place a shot on target under hunting conditions. Dial up to full magnification, aim at object 200m away and see if scope provides enough clarity and if reticle isn't too thick to allow precise aim point for range work.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

**Bowhunter** · 27-03-2018, 12:50

IMO so many people go far too complicated with hunting scopes because they think it looks cool (or tacticool). Stick with a simple scope for hunting, you can still use it for longer range shots at the range which will teach you how to shoot better too. I have a 4-12x50 Meopta on my hunting rifle and I still think it's even overkill. I would actually be happy with a 3-9x40 for any hunting under 300m. (I said hunting not bakkie jag)

**Bonedoc** · 27-03-2018, 13:07

Originally Posted by Bowhunter

IMO so many people go far too complicated with hunting scopes because they think it looks cool (or tacticool). Stick with a simple scope for hunting, you can still use it for longer range shots at the range which will teach you how to shoot better too. I have a 4-12x50 Meopta on my hunting rifle and I still think it's even overkill. I would actually be happy with a 3-9x40 for any hunting under 300m. (I said hunting not bakkie jag)

I agree with you. The problem is that many 1st time rifle owners need a multi purpose rifle-various hunting conditions, shooting competitions, "serious" range work and fun range work. A 4-16x offers that little more versatility. Once you own more than one rifle, it's great to have a hunting setup and a shooting setup.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

**ruaanfs** · 27-03-2018, 13:16

I agree with you in some sense but like Bonedoc said some of us use one rifle for just about everything and needs a bit more versatility

**Messor** · 27-03-2018, 13:54

Ruaan, all this depends on your skill set.

How good are you with snap shooting at 4x?
If it's no problem then you have no problem, and you can use the extra magnification in another terrain.

**ruaanfs** · 28-03-2018, 08:25

Well I decided to go for the FFP.

Reticle is small at 4x but I have no problem to see it and get on target very quickly. And on higher magnification its still fine so no problem with covered targets.

Will be going to he range very soon and get a proper feel for the FFP setup.

Thanks for the info gents its much appreciated.